The Chairman of Honeywell Group, Oba Otudeko, was absent on Thursday at the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos for his arraignment on a charge of allegedly obtaining the sum of ₦12.3bn from First Bank under false pretences.
His co-defendant, the former Managing Director of First Bank, Olabisi Onasanya and a former member of the board member of Honeywell Flour Mills PLC, Soji Akintayo were however present.
The fourth defendant in the case is a company linked to Otudeko, named Anchorage Leisure Ltd.
Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who represented the first defendant, informed the court that his client, Otudeko had filed an application, dated January 28, 2025, explaining his absence.
The application stated that Otudeko left Nigeria on January 16, 2025, for medical treatment in the United Kingdom, arriving at Heathrow Airport the same day.
Olanipekun emphasised that Otudeko had left the country lawfully and did not abscond.
In his response, Counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN) reminded the court that the matter had been adjourned for the arraignment of the defendants, and the prosecution had followed the court’s directive to serve the defendants by substituted means.
He asked for an undertaking from the first defendant, Otudeko on when he will be back in the country for his arraignment.
Counsel for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants, Olasupo Shasore (SAN), Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) and Ade Adedeji (SAN) in their submissions argued that their various applications challenging the court’s jurisdiction should first be heard and determined before arraignment.
Shasore specifically told the court that the absence of the first defendant cannot delay the hearing of the application challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
He noted that it is within the discretion of the court to hear the application.
Adedeji in his submission informed the court there are so many authorities to the effect that the application challenging jurisdiction can be taken now and it will amount to injustice if such an application is not taken before arraignment.
Olanipekun citing Barclays Bank & Central Bank of Nigeria stressed that the court has jurisdiction first to assume jurisdiction on whether or not it has jurisdiction.
He urged the court to schedule a hearing for the applications filed by the defendants, stressing that such motions should not be dismissed merely because they might be viewed as tedious by the prosecution.
In response, Oyedepo asked the court to discountenance the arguments and instead give precedence to arraignment.
He referred the court to the case of Yahaya Bello and Sec 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, (ACJA) 2015 which provides that any preliminary objection to the validity of the charge can only be heard after the plea has been taken.
“The implication is that the taking of a plea in a criminal charge is now a condition precedent to a challenge of the validity of the charge or jurisdiction of the court.
“Asking my lord to hear and determine a preliminary objection while the first defendant is in United Kingdom…from everything that has been exhibited before the court, there’s nothing to say that the first defendant is on admission. So to say that he should remain in his mansion in the UK while all of us are shaving his head at his back is even unfair to him,” Oyedepo said.
Olanipekun, however, countered by arguing that it was crucial to avoid unnecessary delays and distractions.
Citing judicial authorities such as FRN vs. Idahosa and Shema vs. FRN, he maintained that the court had previously dispensed with the defendant’s physical presence in court.
The third defendant’s counsel, Ogunwumiju, also argued that jurisdiction is so radical to any sort of criminal proceeding that any step taken by the court, whether plea, arraignment, trial will become a waste of precious judicial time if, at the end of the day, the court discovered it had no jurisdiction to proceed in the first place.
Citing decided cases and Section 266(a) of the ACJA, he noted that the court could dispense with the appearance of the defendants when deciding interlocutory applications such as the present one challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
Ogunwumiju argued that a civil banker-customer relationship should not be treated as a criminal charge, emphasising that hearing the objections first would serve the interest of justice, as the defence would forfeit the right to object once the plea is taken.
He also submitted that there were documents before the court showing that the bank had collected its money and said that it would not press charges.
The fourth defendant’s counsel, Adedeji, citing Nwadike vs. FRN, argued that court processes should not be used to oppress citizens.
He argued that the case at hand was based on a civil transaction and should not be treated as a criminal matter, further claiming that the prosecution was motivated by malice.
Oyedepo in his reply argued that the defendant’s counsel’s citations were out of context and irrelevant to the charges before the court.
On the claim that the bank had collected its money, Oyedepo said, no private citizen has the requisite power to condone criminal allegation as it would be an offence to condone an offence.
He maintained that there was nothing to show that the government or EFCC had taken any prosecutorial decision on the case.
He also reiterated that the court had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge and urged the court to order the first defendant (Otudeko) to be present at the next hearing on March 17.
However, Olanipekun, responded that the first defendant was under medical review and had been advised to remain in the UK until a comprehensive evaluation had been conducted.
He requested that the court adjourn the case for the hearing of the defence applications instead of issuing a summons for his client to appear.
After hearing arguments from all parties, Justice Aneke adjourned until March 17 to rule on whether to hear the arguments challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
